April 24, 2009

President Obama rebuffed calls for a commission to investigate alleged abuses under the Bush administration in fighting terrorism, telling congressional leaders at a White House meeting yesterday that he wants to look forward instead of litigating the past.

131 comments:

I think he should go after Bush and Cheney with every fibre of his being. Because every poll out there indicates that the biggest issue on every American's mind is not the economy, not rising unemployment not a DOW down 50% from a year ago, not the worst economy since THE GREAT DEPRESSION. No, everyone wants Obama to find out whether Bush or Cheney poured water on Achmed.

Jane like the rest of the left certainly seem to want us to follow the path of third rate banana republics in which in the incoming Presidente` 'investigates' and goes after the outgoing Presidente` Then again considering the Left's love affair with Castro and his kind, it's not much of a surprise.

First, Bush and Cheney didn't do anything illegal. At worst, they may have read the memos and may have acted on them. But at a minimum, they thus had legal cover.

As importantly though, they are both likely protected under Executive immunity. Ain't no way that the courts are going to let an ex President (or VP) go to jail over what is in the end a policy dispute, esp., as noted above, whatever they did was not obviously illegal.

The only people whom Obama could get would be the lawyers, since he has already given a pass for the people who actually did the enhanced interrogation. The problem there is that again, they didn't do anything that was obviously illegal, and arguably didn't push the law any more than the Obama Admin is doing with D.C. representation. (Actually, it is the Obama Admin that seems to have been the one attorney opinion shopping).

This is nothing but bread and circuses. He is throwing the CIA, Bush, Cheney, et al to the media lions and leftist predators. It is a neat parlor trick to take attention away from the failure of his economic plans, ideas, and decisions.

He needs a hot button issue that people can focus on instead of the worsening economy and the woresening of relations with our so called euro weenie "partners". They have seen right through his transparency and are laughing out loud.

PVB -- It was clear from Obama's campaign that something would have to be done about the issue. You can't expect him not to attempt some kind of pushback on the Bush Administration policy.

I would say he's doing the reverse of what you say -- he's doing less than what his more extreme supporters want, and doing it in an uninspiring way. He's compromising and pulling back. He's throwing alfalfa to the lions.

But Pelosi said leaders were never briefed about the actual use of waterboarding, saying top lawmakers were told only about the existence of legal opinions supporting its rationale.

"We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used. What they did tell us is that they had . . . the Office of Legal Counsel opinions [and] that they could be used, but not that they would," she said.WEASEL WORDS OMG. Does this crap fool anybody? Oh, they told us a bunch of hypthetical garbage but I was looking out the window because I didn't think it was real. You know, as ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, my time was wasted by people blathering about irrelevant stuff every day. And I let them do it because that was my job. How could I suspect that this stuff might be real?

...

"They don't come in to consult," Pelosi said of administration officials. "They come in to notify. They come in to notify. And you can't -- you can't change what they're doing unless you can act as a committee or as a class. You can't change what they're doing."I call BS. What are you for, why are you notified, if you dare not make a squeak about what you're hearing. No, she didn't object before because she didn't find it objectionable. And she wouldn't now if she were being honest.

I think Obama has unleashed the Furies in his own Party. His Jacobin wing will run with this, especially after the Dauphin releases the Ain't It Awful Photos next week.

We are entering a new McCarthy period. Just like the last one.

This is NOT unprecedented. The Republicans had been out of power for 20 years in 1952 when their own Messiah, Dwight Eisenhower, got them to the promised land. A lot of anger and rage built up and was made manifest in the McCarthy hearings.

People lost jobs, were blacklisted, and it took Ike and Omar Bradley to shut McCarthy down. The McCarthy era saw its disgraceful high watermark in the security hearing which led to the exile from the Atomic Energy Commission of Robert J. Oppenheimer.

The same thing will happen here. It is a relentlessly logical process once you travel the path of the Paraguayan Junta. People like Condi Rice and John Yoo will lose their jobs. Trust me. This WILL happen.

Eventually, Karmic Justice will come back and bite Obama on the ass, in one way or another, for his overreach and hubris. There will be a huge backlash. Obama doesn't see that now. He and his people only see poll numbers. That's all the Left sees, too, that and the thirst for revenge.

There is nothing in front of Obama save limitless vistas and nothing behind him save defeated enemies. This is where the great men make their mistakes-when they are at their zenith.

Why should B. Hussein do that? All he has to do is declassify stuff and let Congress charge ahead. If the people respond favorably, The Won can claim involvement. If the people respond negatively, he can deny involvement. He can actually do both at the same time to different audiences.

Keep in mind that the THREAT of releasing the dog packs of mobs destroying various scapegoated Alinsky targets is supposed to never go away. Like any good extortion scheme, it loses its power after it has been done. So Obama says "crimes" have occurred but He will overlook them, for now. Everone's statute of limitations run date becomes 2012. The Somali Pirates and Obama think alike.... Just a little more Ransom Money please.

Do you think this is a set up? It makes Obama sound reasonable. Is he, or rather his handler, expecting the release of the CIA interrogation memos to create a groundswell of anger towards the Bush Administration that a responsive president cannot ignore. Does he, or his handler, expect that he will be forced to to rethink (ha!) the issue? I am fully embracing my conspiracy loving nature.

Given that there aren't any quotes from Obama, just a few snipped phrases, Jane can take comfort knowing that though Obama "wants to look forward", that doesn't close the door. There's always the possibility that he's forced into an unhappy situation where he must litigate the past. Obama is nothing if not able to pivot wildly on such conditional terms.

(Is he, or rather his handler, expecting the release of the CIA interrogation memos to create a groundswell of anger towards the Bush Administration that a responsive president cannot ignore.)

What groundswell? The man left office with an approval rating a tad bit north of Truman's 22% so I'm finding it difficult to accept that people would be more pissed off at him over this.

And in all honesty, does anyone other than hard lefties like Jane atually care at this point? Like I said upthread, the economy is in the latrine with 6 million unemploymed yet they'll forget those troubles to focus on the poor treatment we gave to headhackers.

What would be so freshly stupid about doing what Pelosi et al want is-

The war in two theaters isn't even over yet.[with Obama opening up a Pakistani front.]

You have no surrender, no treaty, no agreements and you have US troops over there and you want to have SHOW trials that would say the reason they are over there is wrong.

Hamscher's supposed concern was for the dead 4,000 in that tape but never mind the guys still over there. She is willing to inspire our enemies to attack them with new vigor and legitimacy-handed to them by our own new majority of Democrats that now hold power.

Speaking of which-with the Democrats holding the Executive, the House and the Senate-

In what venue would Bush administration officials get a "fair" trial?

This would be a realFIRST!

Try an administrationof one party for a war while YOUR party still has troops committed to the field of that same war.

Consider this: perhaps this is Pelosi's way of once again complaining that "they didn't come to consult us! They came to notify us!" She can wring her hands and make puppy dog eyes to her SF constituents, but know that she won't actually have to be responsible for anything. "It's those awful republicans that convinced Obama and there's nothing else I could do. I tried! If only we had more control! If only I were in a place of power!"

It's pathetic. She's the fraking Speaker of the House. If she wants a Truth Commission then damn the torpedoes, she can make one happen.

Actually I would have respect for Obama if he just came out and said that we won’t use any type of coercive interrogation whatsoever in any circumstances because it violates our founding principles and if that means we lose another 3,000 or 300,000 in a terror attack then that’s just the price we have to pay to earn back the world’s respect. Cause that’s what it’s all about isn’t it? Al Quaeda really can’t hurt us too bad, it was only 3,000 dead. Maybe that argument will work. Maybe Obama standing in a nuke/bio suit over ground zero in what was [insert US city here] or on the rubble of some other American skyscraper can explain that while the terrorists can kill us by the bushel they won’t make us become them. Instead he spouts off flowery drivel (that’s for you Nichevo ;-) about being better than them but without the consequences.

If you are rich and connected, we treat your transgressions differently.

If you are a poor single mother, well, you are to blame for the crisis of fatherless children. If you are the daughter of the GOP VP nominee, well, it's all that damned medias fault that you're being picked on.

If you are a poor schmuck who overextended yourself, we've changed the bankruptcy laws to favor the banks.

If you are a banker who lost money by trading in byzantine credit default swaps? We got piles of federal money for you.

If you are a grunt at Abu Ghraib? Jail time. If you authorized what those grunts did, we really need to focus on moving forward.

If you are rich and connected, we treat your transgressions differently. .

This is news to you? Heck 50% of the NBA lineup would be in jail if they didn't.

If you are a poor single mother, well, you are to blame for the crisis of fatherless children.Well a poor single mother is half to blame.

If you are the daughter of the GOP VP nominee, well, it's all that damned medias fault that you're being picked on.Not sure how that connects with the poor single mom but I guess you can't help yourself not to take a swipe at your anti-Christ.

If you are a poor schmuck who overextended yourself, we've changed the bankruptcy laws to favor the banks.Probably because they previously favored debtors and encouraged reckless spending.

If you are a banker who lost money by trading in byzantine credit default swaps? We got piles of federal money for you. I blame Obama.

If you are a grunt at Abu Ghraib? Jail time. If you authorized what those grunts did, we really need to focus on moving forward.Actually I'd like to know if those memos actually authorized those particular grunts to put panties on the head of those particular prisoners? Somehow I'm guessing it wasn't supposed to be a free for all.

Those defending torture have been reasonably consistent in their arguments. Probably the only surprise in recent days in not how anyone was tortured (that was leaked and defended) or who was tortured (that was leaked and defended), but how many times certain individuals were tortured.

But the defenses for "how" and "who" have been out there for years. It's not like waterboarding is a surprising new term. Except maybe to people with convenient amnesia like Nancy Pelosi.

Torture is either wrong on principle or it's not. Whether or not Republicans are tricky hypocrites is a trifling consideration. It's a flea on the back of the dog of principle.

(Five, six years ago, it was all "We don't torture" from the right wing noise machine. Or, if it happened, it was only some rogue grunts)

Funny cause it was 5-6 years ago liberal Democrats like Hillary, Kerry and Kennedy were in lockstep in singing the WMD threat with Bush and Cheney. Then when it wasn't politically expedient the tune changed and now it's all Bush lied people died.

True, but once the news was out, Palin used Bristol's pregnancy as a prop. Do you really think Palin believed this story wouldn't get out? According to locals, Bristol's pregnancy was common knowledge in Wasilla.

Hoosier, you blame Obama for bailing out the banks? Heard of TARP?

It's not like it would have been different under McCain. He was all about the bailout, remember?

If you think I'm a Pelosi apologist, you are mistaken.

Henry, here's what the Weekly Standard had to say about the Abu Ghraib grunts in 2004:

Section 9 - A lot of anger and rage built up and was made manifest in the McCarthy hearings.

People lost jobs, were blacklisted, and it took Ike and Omar Bradley to shut McCarthy down. The McCarthy era saw its disgraceful high watermark in the security hearing which led to the exile from the Atomic Energy Commission of Robert J. Oppenheimer..

The only thing McCarthy did that was a mistake was that in taking the ball up and running with it, he became more a politician than an investigator and fed off popular approval of his aggression.

We now know that most of the people rounded up were guilty as sin of being communists and having 1st loyalty to the Soviet Union. All the A-Bomb spies were not victims of anti-Semitism. They were guilty. The Hollywood blacklist, we now know, actually was about 3 rings of communists, writers that met in cells and subjected one another to Stalinist discipline. State was riddled with agents of influence. Oppenheimer DID hang with communists and was later found to have lied about his contacts with them.

What we HAD was a 30 year-long propaganda effort by progressive Jews in control of much of the media and NYC/Hollywood cultural pacesetters out to demonize people like Nixon, McCarthy. Truman for "persecuting" innocent people like the Rosenbergs, Alger Hiss, and the innocents of the Hollywood blacklist. The great, noble Oppenheimer..who no doubt only stuck by his communist acquaintances and didn't "rat them out" because of his genius, breeding, and high moral refinement.

That Leftist/Progressive Jewish "demon MyCarthyite!!" campaign began to fall apart in the 80s when the Verona Cables became public knowledge and various people in the Greenglass/Rosenberg cell and Hollywood, in the sunset of their lives, admitted they were Soviet loyalists..

"Sounds like you suffer from Sully Syndrome where you use gays as a shield to hide behind while you attack everyone who is not for the Democratic Way, or who does not adhere to the Democratic Commandments 100%.

(True, but once the news was out, Palin used Bristol's pregnancy as a prop. .)

Perhaps in your eyes she did. All I saw her do was defend Bristol and act the supportive mom.

(Do you really think Palin believed this story wouldn't get out? According to locals, Bristol's pregnancy was common knowledge in Wasilla)

That's not the point. Was Palin's 17 year old daughter's pregnancy something that the media should have focused on?

Hoosier, you blame Obama for bailing out the banks? Heard of TARP? Sure I do. I blame him for not just continuing it but adding more to the pile. How much additional money we don't have did he shovel to AIG?

(Henry, here's what the Weekly Standard had to say about the Abu Ghraib grunts in 2004:

They have endangered any American unlucky enough to find himself at the mercy of our enemies in the war on terror.)

Well considering the enemies we're up against were already hacking off the heads of innocent civilians unlucky enough to find themselves at thier mercy, it was a safe assumption that our soldiers weren't going to be afforded thier Geneva Convention rights.

If torture was such the heinous issue which Democrats are so completely clean of and noble about then why-when the Democrats had control of both the House and Senate in 2006 did you not start Impeachment proceedings against the Bush Administration?

The Democrat party allowed it to supposedly continue.

The real reason is by gawd Bush might have still had some means with which to defend himself.

Now Democrats hold control over every damn thing and the majority of the media and you can cherry pick the evidence.

From Baseball Crank:"We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used. What they did tell us is that they had . . . the Office of Legal Counsel opinions [and] that they could be used, but not that they would," [Pelosi] said.

OMG! Let the trials begin! I will volunteer for the defense if I get to cross examine this despicable airhead.

More specifically, he doesn't want HIS people investigated and jailed after his term of office is over. And you can be damned sure that would happen, if he decided to prosecute Bush Administration officials.

Sure, his folks probably aren't "torturing" anybody, but it is impossible that they aren't breaking all sorts of financial regulations and laws -- it is almost impossible not to.

(If torture was such the heinous issue which Democrats are so completely clean of and noble about then why-when the Democrats had control of both the House and Senate in 2006 did you not start Impeachment proceedings against the Bush Administration?)

I asked this very same question on this blog last year and was told...wait for it...that they couldn't because they didn't have a big enough majority.

Seems like alot of conservatives have already conceded that if a trial were brought up Bush and Cheney would be cooked. I sure don't hear "bring it on!". If the idea is so ridiculous and the methods implemented so necessary [and saved thousands of lives!] why not welcome it? If it was just a little water and a few slaps that saved so many lives I would think they would want the American public to know that. Republicans sure don't have anything else going for them electorally, this could be that shot in the arm they so desperately need.

AJ, no there wasn't a lot of media balance re. Bristol Palin. And there has not been enough investigation into the claims that Biden's daughter uses cocaine. I'd be all for that story being dug up. And I was all for Edwards being exposed as the lying sack of shit he is.

Hoosier, I'm not here to argue for the Weekly Standard. I merely used their quote to demonstrate that once upon a time, they argued that if torture happened, it was the fault of low-ranking rogues.

madawaskan, the general discussion now focuses on the torture memos, not the decision to go to war.

I don't expect prosecutions. I expect Pelosi, et al, to attempt to milk this for their political gain. That's the way of the world.

I believe Pelosi is lying about the briefings. And about pretty much everything else.

madawaskan, before you give up, could you try backing up what you said about me? Seriously, where have I ever made claims about my sexual orientation?

(If the idea is so ridiculous and the methods implemented so necessary [and saved thousands of lives!] why not welcome it? If it was just a little water and a few slaps that saved so many lives I would think they would want the American public to know that. )

I think that's exactly why Cheney wanted the rest of the intel declassified so the public could see what the tangible results were.

(Hoosier, I'm not here to argue for the Weekly Standard. I merely used their quote to demonstrate that once upon a time, they argued that if torture happened, it was the fault of low-ranking rogues. )

I know. I was only pointing out the big flaw in thier reasoning that somehow this was going to endanger our troops when they were already beheading innocent civilians. With that, I don't think much of the rest of the article.

"We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that the gas chambers or any of these other ovens were used. What they did tell us is that they had . . . the Office of Legal Counsel opinions [and] that they could be used, but not that they would," [Pelosi] said.

Good, now we can look forward to Obama's war crimes trial once his administration leaves office. So far he has bombed and killed people in a sovereign country, Pakistan, without declaring war. This in just his first 100 days.

What the left fails to grasp here is that someday they will lose their grip on power.

My main and primary criticism of this Democrat venture is that you don't do this-attack the foundation of this particular war while you are committed to that war in two separate theaters and are flirting with expanding upon that- Pakistan.

Obama with his right hand has committed not only to that but has sent 30,000 more troops out there-while his Left Hand is doing this "dirty work".

I'm not a legal history expert but I don't think even the French or a Banana Republic have done something so incredibly self serving and stupid at the same time while claiming it's all about the troops that they have still out there.

Uh huh.

All while at the same seemingly ignorant that this is the Information Age and what the ramifications of doing this would be for the troops in theater.

Oh and you know -screw what it would do for their morale that's the least of your worries-always.

madawaskan, you made specific claims about me that you have not been able to support. Did those claims have any connection to your main point?

As for your main point, you agree with Obama that there should not be a commission to investigate alleged abuses in the war on terror, correct?

Alleged abuses in the war on terror -- that would mean torture.

You object to the posturing coming from other Democrats, most notably Pelosi, correct?

I only brought up the other examples -- of which there is bipartisan evidence -- to show that there is one standard for the rich and connected (see Rich, Mark) and one for the rest of us. Since Bush and Cheney and their closest pals are in the former group, I don't expect to see them prosecuted.

Unlike the American Left situational love for Rule of Law, the radical Muslims sweeping out and killing people truly believe in Rule of Law over The People.They are absolutely sincere about it.

But they believe in Rule of Law as given by Allah himself over any silly decisions mankind crafts, from agreements on conduct of War, to dispatch of prisoners on whim of the conquerer, to when it is appropriate to beat the women in their household.

Their Rule of Law is called Sharia.

We all know that the American Left views Law as a flexible instrument useful in advancing "social justice". Certain laws they approve of, many never voted on by The People, are absolute. And anyone that protests judicial diktats on matters like gay marriage, terrorist rights, crippling debt spending - seeks to "shred the Constitution and Opposes Rule of Law". And the hysteria over "toorrrrtttuuuuree!" and the "We are better than that! Rule of Law!! Is accompanied by their past, all too predictable silence on the Gulags, N Vietnam just 'understandably" harsh with 'baby-killing' US POWs, and their frequent VIP visits and toasts to Fidel less than 1 km from a major prison where his dissidents are held ....and.....Toorrrttuuurrred!!

When it comes to Constitutional rights like states rights, firearms, providing for the Common defense....well...those are rights that really aren't rights because the language is vague..When it comes to referendums they oppose, judges are more correct than the People collectively voting on what law they want - only judges can be wise enough..

Any law the Left dislikes, such as those saying the 12 million illegal aliens need to be deported, or cop killers a jury convicts under law and says should be dispatched (like their beloved Mumia) are wrong, inconvenient and need to be ignored.

America works best if we operate not on Rule of Law, but Rule of the People. All laws, including the Constitution, start from the premise they only exist as instruments because We The People establish and ordain them. And allow them to persist only at our sufference.

This isn't a country that should ever be run by the secular version of the Mullahs imposing Shariah - Or , for that matter, by the secular version of the lawyerly Jewish Sanhedrin.

Something to think about as Pakistan slowly falls to the Taliban, radical Islamist parties, and AQ forces committed to placing all of Pakistan under Rule of Law.

You wrote: every battle where someone is not heeding the Democrat Commandments which must be adhered too one hundred percent-you find away to bring up that particular topic."That topic" presumably being the issue of gays, which I didn't even bring up on this thread.

You do that consistently btw-yet you also go out of your way here to claim that you aren't gay.You had to go back nearly a year to find an example of something I supposedly do "consistently"?

You can hardly accuse me of injecting "that topic" into a thread titled "Being gay is like belonging to an 'exclusive club.'"

Peter, I don't believe the CIA interrogations were moral or justified. I really don't know if they were legal.

I do believe that Obama is doing the right thing in trying to bring some transparency to what happened, but without indulging in prosecutorial fantasies.

After that, I'm not sure what your point is, really. Your analogies are nonsensical.

Abu Ghraib and CIA waterboarding make about as logical a continuum as the strip search of a 13-year-old girl with concealed ibuprofen and the strip search of a felon with a concealed gun. Unless you build an elaborate web of causality, the latter never implies the former.

Henry, Janis Karpinski, who was in charge of Abu Ghraib, argues that those who were convicted of abusing prisoners were following orders, thus connecting the dots.

That doesn't "connect the dots". Karpinski is the person the military formally blamed for the abuses. She relieved of command and busted from Brigadier General to Colonel for her incompetence in supervising the convicted guards. She obviously has an enormous incentive to claim that she was just following orders. Unfortunately for her there isn't a lick of evidence in support of her claim.

And unfortunately for you, the uncorroborated testimony of one of the perpetrators of a crime isn't sufficient to establish the existence of a larger conspiracy.

I think, just to be on the safe side, all political philosophies besides Democrat-approved liberalism should be declared illegal. Every politician who ever ran or served under these rogue political parties and philosophies should be summarily executed, anyone who voted for any of these politicians, for any reason, should be disenfranchised and imprisoned if they refuse to renounce and abjure these parties and their past political mistakes.

She obviously has an enormous incentive to claim that she was just following orders. Unfortunately for her there isn't a lick of evidence in support of her claim.Exactly. And if there were orders for prisoner abuse from higher up in the DoD, Karpinski would have been sure to retain a copy for her own protection.

The fact that she couldn't produce a memo, an e-mail or anything else in writing tells me that her claims are pure self-serving bullshit.

Yeah ,it was torture. So what?If the life of one my children was at stake, I'd do more than show them Water World. If you have children and you can say that you wouldn't do what ever is necessary to protect them, you occupy a special pedestal on a moral Everest. If you would do what is necessary like the rest of us mere mortals, don't criticize those who protect other peoples children. It's war not dodge-ball; people are dying daily, turned into human torches, dismembered and painfully reassembled, gut-shot and left to slowly die in the Hindu Kush, and a million other grotesque things.Meanwhile you engage in this 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin' crap about stuff as rough as a college fraternity hell week.

Well, THAT'S a dumb thing to say. I can't think of a single person here who has conceded that Bush and Cheney "would be cooked" if brought to trial.

Your whole argument seems to be that anyone who thinks Bush and Cheney would be found innocent should want them to be prosecuted. But of course no sane person wants innocent people put on trial just to prove they're right.

Hey, how about we start torturing suspects in this country? Especially if they are accused of hurting children.

This is the whole reason we talk past each other on these issues. You're still thinking of this as a domestic criminal justice matter rather than a war.

Cops aren't allowed to waterboard under US criminal law, but then again they're not allowed to use Hellfire missiles, GPS-guided bombs or Apache helicopters either. We use those things against terrorists because it's a war and criminal justice rules don't apply.

I still find it hilarious that it's considered the height of barbarism to put a caterpillar is some terrorist's cell but perfectly civilized to drop a 500 lb bomb on the guy's house.

I remember the last great froth producer on the left... Iran-Contra. Remember that and how it really needed to be looked into and charges brought and so on and so forth? Then Bill Clinton gets into office and its 'looking towards the future' and 'everything is complicated'... ahh the soap opera atmosphere. Plus the problem of the Clintons having their own ties to figures in Iran-Contra.

The left is great for this frothing soap opera bit... its great if you like soap opera and betrayal and continual gnashing of the teeth, the vituperation and innuendo and slurs so easily handed out. Then when it comes to doing something, well, it all just slides so easily away, can't pin anything on anyone because, you know, if you tried 'good people' might be hurt... meaning the preferred cadre of office holders that have been there so long they have fossilized. I'm pretty sure that the old scripts just got a quick update, name changes, activities cited and so forth. The soap opera remains just the same. And as pointless now as it was then.

When you pray to Jesus for the forgiveness of sin will you include the beating and drownings our Shining Beacon on a Hill has done to men shackeled to ceilings and starved for days?

Will Christ forgive you if you do not repent for what was done in our name?

It's one thing to say that Japanese American interment was justified and still call it a stain on liberty...it's another thing entirely to be fucking proud of it or say it didn't happen or that...hey we didn't really intern them in camps....we just relocated them.

Lars, I used to hear that "the ends justify the means" was a liberal trope.

It was a trope of classical liberalism -- John Stuart Mill and the like. Modern liberalism bears about as much resemblance to classical liberalism as modern-day goths do to classical Goths.

Hey, how about we start torturing suspects in this country? Especially if they are accused of hurting children.

Torture was a normal part of American police investigations until well into the 20th century, of course.

But I would say that the reason the US government shouldn't torture Americans is that the US government exists specifically to protect Americans. Any program that involved torturing Americans would run a serious risk of harming more Americans than it helped. We should always be cautious about government uses of force against its own citizenry.

When you pray to Jesus for the forgiveness of sin will you include the beating and drownings our Shining Beacon on a Hill has done to men shackeled to ceilings and starved for days?

I'm not sure if you've actually read the Bible, but there were several points where the use of torture was implicitly or explicitly sanctioned by God.

Anyway, so far as Christianity itself is concerned, the same justifications for participating in a just war apply to necessary use of torture. For example, it should be done out of necessity, not out of hatred, anger, pleasure, or other base motives. Jesus himself didn't really address the issue of war at all, but both the Jews he was preaching to and more of the Christians who followed after made a distinction between appropriate civilian behavior (e.g., murder is wrong) and appropriate wartime behavior (e.g., killing the enemy is allowed). Torturing a terrorist in order to save his potential victims is justified on the same grounds that KILLING a terrorist to save his potential victims is justified.

Revenant says he has read the Bible, but he clearly does not understand what it is, or what the "new" part means in New Testament, or the anthological aspect, or the literary aspect, or the folklorical aspect, or, in fact, any other aspect other than the idea that it is a set of facts that he -- as an intellectual, you understand -- disputes.

They can't do it because conspiracy to commit torture carries a 20 year sentence. Since Nancy Pelosi and many in congress conspired to commit this torture they should all be in jail. We know that isn't going to happen.

I am not a lawyer, so that probably explains my confusion, but why do we mention former VP Cheney. The VP doesn't work for the President and constitutionally isn't in charge of any cabinet office. So, he is just another person with a staff and an opinion, isn't he?

I'm putting together the article of particulars for the charge sheet against Obama's people and it shall be used when the next real American administration takes offices. So far, the summary of charges is four pages long,the detail is over 2,000 pages.

This is going to be fun.

I'm ever so thankful that Obama has set the precedent of persecuting previous administrations. At least he's done something right.

Nancy, behave for the rest of this session of Congress and you might just make through for a few short week before a charge sheet is issued against you.

Althouse notes:President Obama rebuffed calls for a commission to investigate alleged abuses under the Bush administration in fighting terrorism, telling congressional leaders at a White House meeting yesterday that he wants to look forward instead of litigating the past.And Old Grouchy, among others, takes this to mean that "Obama has set the precedent of persecuting previous administrations."

Cedarford wants to pretend that the objection to torture exists as a situational function of the left, as if there were no conservatives who have principled objections to torture.

So far as I can tell Cedarford was attacking the Left for opposing torture (unsurprisingly, the Jews are in the thick of it), but not actually saying that ONLY the Left was opposed to torture. A person would have to be pretty damned stupid to argue that only the Left opposes torture -- but then again there are some pretty damned stupid people who post here, so I guess we can't rule it out. :)

The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel.Who's talking? Why the people who ran the SERE program. Yes, SERE, the program which torture apologists us to claim there was no torture under Bush-Cheney.

Read all about it.The military agency that provided advice on harsh interrogation techniques for use against terrorism suspects referred to the application of extreme duress as "torture" in a July 2002 document sent to the Pentagon's chief lawyer and warned that it would produce "unreliable information."

Wow, A.L. hit the nail right on the head: "Wow. This is stunning news, which should be impossible to deny:".

So my guess is that the Japanese used that rationale for their mistreat of our POWs during the big one, as did the NoKos and Chicom during the Korean War, as did the VC and NVA during that Vietnam thingy, as did Saddam during the Gulf War and then the insurgents during post OIF and the Taliban after OEF, Gee if only we'd learned and not been so cruel, eh.

So, now thanks to AL we know better. God Bless you AL. We're saved, so spake AL's Messiah, The One.

The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel.

You could, I guess, argue that the torture of Party X by Party Y gives Party X a legitimate justification for torturing members of Party Y.

The problem you run into with that argument is that all our enemies regularly torture captured Americans. The last time we fought an enemy that didn't use torture was 1919, and even that's iffy. Our current enemies -- Muslim terrorists -- have been torturing captured Americans since the 1970s.

So if torture can justify torture, it logically follows that we're justified in torturing Muslim terrorists. :)

Let's put serrated edges back on bayonets. I mean we drop a 500lb bomb on the their home right?The current M9 bayonet has serrations along its top edge. They're handy for sawing and splicing line, among other things.

Oh, and I really want to see someone make in detail the argument that Al Qaeda wouldn't torture or mistreat US troops if only not for that darned Buah waterboarding. Really, this should be good.